§ 2.59 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE)My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The text is as follows: "I should like to make a statement about my meeting with the European Community in Brussels on the 11th and 12th of December.
"At this meeting, which was attended by Ministers of the other applicant countries, I was accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture as well as my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The two main subjects on the agenda were fisheries and animal health.
"On fisheries the United Kingdom, together with the Republic of Ireland and Denmark, have now reached agreement on the outstanding problems. We have persuaded the Community of the need to safeguard the essential fishing interests of the applicant countries in order to ensure conservation of fishing stocks and the protection of the livelihood of our fishermen. As a result of the agreement we have reached the position would be as follows.
"First, it is clear that we retain full jurisdiction over the whole of our coastal waters up to twelve miles. In other words we have power to control on a non-discriminatory basis the conservation of stocks by such means as the regulation of size of nets, types of trawl and methods of fishing.
"Secondly, access to our coastal waters within six miles from our baselines is limited exclusively to British vessels. Next, in areas between six to twelve miles, where the baselines are not in themselves a sufficient safeguard or where the stocks are already fully exploited, the fishing will also be limited to British vessels and to those with existing rights to fish there for certain species of fish. The areas covered in this way out to twelve miles 1000 are the Orkneys and Shetlands, the North and East Coasts of Scotland, North-East England from the river Coquet to Flamborough Head, Devon and Cornwall including, of course, the Scillies and Lundy Island, and County Down.
"The effect of all this is that there is no change at all in the protection now afforded in areas from which 95 per cent. by value of the total inshore catch is taken. As far as the remainder is concerned, that is. those areas I have not mentioned earlier, there will be a generalisation of existing rights between six and twelve miles only.
"We have also sought and obtained a formal assurance from the Community that the legal application of the Common Fisheries Policy would not permit, either in form or in fact, any discrimination by a member State in waters beyond twelve miles over which it might exercise fisheries jurisdiction against the fishing vessels of other member States operating in such waters. This is a valuable safeguard for our deep sea fishermen.
"As to the future of the Fisheries Policy, we have urged upon the Community the need for common action in all our interests to ensure conservation of stocks. In consequence we have agreed with the Community that as soon as practicable, and by 1979 at the latest, the Community will attempt to determine conditions for the preservation of the biological resources of the sea.
"We have further agreed that before the end of 1982 the enlarged Community will, after studying a report on the situation then obtaining with particular reference to the economic and social conditions of inshore areas and the state of the fish stocks, examine the arrangements which could follow what we have negotiated for the first ten years.
"Here I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period.
"In substance what we have achieved can fairly be described for the most part as a maintenance of the status quo for a decade, followed by a fair and open-ended review taking account of all 1001 the circumstances of the time. I am confident that when that review takes place Her Majesty's Government will continue to safeguard this vital national interest.
"Before leaving this subject I should like to bring to the attention of the House the advantage we have secured in regard to marketing arrangements which are designed to secure better and more stable conditions in the fishing industry and to which I referred in my statement to the House on the 11th of November.
"Finally, I know the anxieties that exist about conservation and effective measures of policing. As I have already explained to the House, we will retain full jurisdiction over our 12-mile limit. The Fisheries Protection Services of the Royal Navy and the Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will continue to he responsible for the enforcement of our regulations, including those governing fishing methods and for ensuring that vessels of other countries are excluded from the inner six miles and that limitations on access in areas between six and twelve miles are strictly enforced.
"Honourable Members will be aware that the Scottish Department is already ordering a new fisheries cruiser, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has undertaken to strengthen the forces at present employed by the Royal Navy on protection duties in coastal waters. My right honourable friend will be making a further statement on this in the near future.
"The other major issue on which we were able to reach agreement was animal health.
"The Community has adopted a number of Directives which, if applied to Britain would have involved a number of important changes in our animal health arrangements.
"We therefore asked for and secured agreement that pending the establishment of a common veterinary policy we would not be required to accept any animals, whether for rearing, breeding or immediate slaughter which have been vaccinated against foot and mouth disease. We shall similarly he free to continue our existing methods of test 1002 ing for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Imports of non-vaccinated animals from other Member States will continue to be covered by national rules, and imports of meat will he subject to animal and public health controls in accordance with the Community's provisions.
"These arrangements will apply for five years. Well before the end of that period the Commission will review the whole situation and the veterinary developments which have taken place and to the extent necessary make appropriate proposals taking account of those developments.
"These arrangements, which take account of the existing differences in standards and practices, will ensure that progress towards common veterinary arrangements throughout the enlarged Community will involve no increase in animal health risk.
"I am therefore satisfied, as is my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, that our essential animal health requirements are fully safeguarded now and will remain so in the future."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
§ 3.7 p.m.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, may I, on behalf of your Lordships, express to the noble Baroness our thanks for repeating that Statement the day after it was made in another place. My noble friend made the request that it should be repeated in this House because of your Lordships' interest in this particular problem. May I discount the latter part of the Statement about animal welfare and regulations and confine my questions to the fishing industry? The noble Baroness talked about a new fisheries cruiser being ordered by the Scottish Office, but is it not a fact that this cruiser was coming, whether we went into the E.E.C. or not? It was necessary for the protection of our fishing grounds and has nothing to do with this particular problem.
When the noble Baroness says that all things have been safeguarded until ten years ahead, is she not in fact saying that the only matter that will be considered in ten years' time is whether the countries of the E.E.C. will have an entry into our fishing grounds or not? That is the 1003 only question that will then arise, because there are no other fishing grounds available to us. As a result of this agreement, would the noble Baroness not agree with the summing up in a very ex-parte paper, the Daily Telegraph, of yesterday which said that the conclusion for Britain is that Britain has in effect dropped her demand for a formal automatic right of veto over free access by Market fishermen to her waters after the first decade of membership? Whether the noble Baroness agrees or disagrees, I do not think that the agreement is what she makes it out to be. It may have been the best that could be obtained, but it certainly has nothing to do with the promises that have been made.
If that is so, may I ask the noble Baroness what our position is vis-à-vis our partner, Norway? On October 25 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in another place:
We have also to protect the position of our partners in EFTA."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1241.]He made that perfectly clear. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said in another place on December 7:Our approach is a joint approach with Norway, Ireland and Denmark and we shall hope to continue in that way. It would be a great mistake to be hypothetical on what may happen if any of these countries should fall out. We hope that this will not be the case."—(col. 1106.)If Norway has fallen out, how can the Government declare that they have maintained the British position by not claiming anything less than Norway? If Norway has not accepted, it is because she wants rather more and we must have rather less.In this respect I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would either confirm or deny a statement made in another place last Thursday when an honourable Member sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and said that the Prime Minister of this country had written to the Prime Minister of Norway and said to him, "For goodness sake ! tone down your claims about these fishing agreements." In other words, "You are going to make it awkward for Britain in these negotiations. You must accept less than you have." Indeed it has been regrded in the Norwegian Press as a great interference in the rights of Norway herself. 1004 It comes very strange, on the day when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in reply to another Question, says that we have no right to interfere in the affairs of another country. Did the Prime Minister in fact send this letter? If he did, was not his reason to try to tone down Norway's request and get somewhat less than we had been promised before? Finally, would the noble Baroness not agree that, as a result of these negotiations, there are considerable parts of the fishing industry in this country, with which I have been associated for many years, who not only are disappointed but feel that they have in fact been betrayed by the settlement that has now been reached?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, my answer to the first question, whether a new fishery cruiser was necessary whether we joined the E.E.C. or not, is, yes, it is necessary. In answer to the second question, quoting the Daily Telegraph, whether in 1892 we have given up our right to an automatic veto—
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I apologise. I meant 1982—I have written the date down wrongly. As to whether we have given up our rights to an automatic veto, that is not so, because we have declared that fisheries are of course a vital national interest, and that being so they attract the unanimity rule. On the question of the position of Norway, we have always said—in fact I said this on the last occasion when this matter was discussed —that we sought comparable opportunities for all the applicant countries. As I have already said in the Statement, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark together with ourselves accept these conditions, and we hope very much that Norway will, too.
Regarding the last question, whether the Prime Minister of this country wrote to the Norwegian Prime Minister, I also read the remarks in the Press. The point is that we are always in constant touch with all our negotiating partners. We believe that, as we have secured for this country that 95 per cent. of the fishing for the inshore fishing interests is preserved in this country, all the arrangements, including the review arrangements 1005 in 10 years' time, are very satisfactory; and we hope that Norway will join, too.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, may I press the noble Baroness on one question before we go any further? The noble Baroness says we are always in touch with the other countries. I asked a specific question. Did the Prime Minister of this country write to the Prime Minister of Norway and ask him to tone down the negotiating position of Norway with regard to transactions in the E.E.C.? Was a letter sent or was it not sent? That does not require a difficult answer.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEAs a matter of fact, my Lords, it is a difficult answer to give because I do not happen to know. I will certainly try to find out the answer. Even if it has been sent, I would suggest that that is a perfectly fair position. If four applicant countries are negotiating together on fisheries, and three of them agree that the results are good, I should have thought it was a friendly act to suggest to the fourth country that they were satisfactory to them, too.
§ 3.13 p.m.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, what we on these Benches feel is that the agreement now reached on fishing is certainly the best that could have been achieved in the circumstances. All that we might be disposed to criticise is the impression previously created, I think, by Mr. Rippon, that he could achieve something even more cast-iron in the way of long-term guarantees. Obviously the Six have abandoned their original position and have agreed to most important and far-reaching derogations from their fishing regulations, which was presumably the chief object of the exercise. Nor can anybody legitimately object, I suggest, to the arrangements proposed for the 10 years following on our entry into the E.E.C. What will happen then will be the result of some further long negotiation in which all the members of the enlarged Community will of course do their utmost to safeguard the legitimate interests of all their fishermen. It seems to us there is no reason to suppose that the British Government in 1983 will be unable to fight their corner perfectly well; but the eventual agreement will have to be something which reflects the interests not only of one country but of the group as a 1006 whole, and this will naturally include sensible arrangements for conservation.
However, what we surely cannot do—and this is something which I hope is accepted by the Government; indeed, from what he said yesterday in another place it seems to have been accepted implicitly by Mr. Rippon—always supposing we propose to join a Community which is something more than a collection of totally independent States, is to bang the table and say that unless we obtain complete satisfaction on every point, on any question that may be under discussion, including of course fishing, then we shall veto (as the saying is) any collective decision. If we go into the Community in that frame of mind, it will not work, and indeed there would be small point in our joining.
My Lords, I have only one question to ask.
§ LORD GLADWYNI always understood, my Lords, that on Statements one could make a statement in reply, provided it was limited to a minute or two. I have only one specific question. Supposing, as now unfortunately may be the case, the Norwegians cannot reach any agreement on fishing, and therefore decide not to proceed with their negotiations for entry into the E.E.C., is such a fact likely in any way to upset the timetable respecting our own entry and that of the other candidates?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, if I may speak for everyone I think the House will be very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who has taken such an interest in the European Communities, has welcomed this final, very difficult stage of the negotiations. If I may say so, he is of course absolutely right. The Common Market countries have in fact gone a very long way from their Common Fisheries Policy in agreeing to the very large derogations that we have, happily, been able to achieve with our partners. It is certainly true, I would agree also with the noble Lord—and this is why we have said we must do this at least before 1979—that we must all agree on a policy of conservation. This is absolutely vital. He asked also whether it is not a fact that 1007 we must not all the time be speaking about a veto. I think this is true. I believe I used those words during our debate, saying that the European Community has been a success so far because it rests upon consent. While one might have the power of veto in the background, one would hope to achieve what one wished by negotiation. On the question of whether, if Norway did not join, it would affect our signing of the Treaty of Accession, the answer is, No. We hope to he able to do this about the middle of January; but of course we hope very much that Norway will join.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy on a remarkable achievement after these days and nights of arduous negotiation, which I should have thought unjustified and unnecessary because the whole problem should never have arisen? But what happens after 10 years? That is the nub of the problem. Is this merely a stay of execution, or do Her Majesty's Government consider that in practice the arrangements now negotiated and concluded can never be changed without our consent?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I will certainly gladly convey to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the congratulations of my noble friend Lord Boothby because they come from someone who has taken a lifelong interest in fisheries and knows a great deal about them. As regards his question, a very important one, whether after 10 years, in 1982, the agreement will have been merely a stay of execution, or whether it would mean in practice that the arrangements negotiated thereafter could not be concluded successfully without the United Kingdom's consent, the answer is, Yes; the arrangements could not be concluded without the United Kingdom's consent.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answer.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify a point? She is resting on the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers regarding matters touching national interests. Is 1008 she aware that that unanimity rule has been subject to some discussion recently, and that there are many inside the Common Market who believe it should be changed to a comprehensive majority vote situation in the Council of Ministers? If the unanimity rule were changed to a majority rule between now and 1982, would it still require the consent of Her Majesty's Government before the fisheries situation could be changed?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, there is no question at the moment of any change whatsoever in the unanimity rule. In fact, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said so yesterday. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will remember that when the Prime Minister came back from meeting President Pompidou he particularly referred to this question: it was agreed between them that subjects which were of vital national interest would be subject to the unanimity rule. In fact, if I may quote it exactly, it was on May 24 that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
the maintenance and strengthening of the fabric of co-operation in such a Community requires that decisions should in practice be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 24/5/71, col. 32.]That is really the answer to the noble Lord's question.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, does that not mean that we should have the right of veto if we objected?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEYes, my Lords.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness two questions? First, has she observed that throughout the whole of these negotiations those who are seeking to put us into the Common Market have used the argument, "This is the best we can get"? The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, used that very phrase a moment or two ago. It is not what is in our interests but, "the best that we can get". I should like to receive an answer to that question.
Secondly, has the noble Baroness observed in the public Press—and I 1009 thought my noble friend might have mentioned this in his welcome to this alleged concession—that my noble friend Lord Boothby had a conversation with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday about these negotiations, when he said that he was now satisfied that the scheme was what we wanted. Could the noble Baroness furnish us with the information as to what it was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said to my noble friend Lord Boothby which converted him?
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, I think I had better answer that—
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, perhaps I should answer first, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, wanted to know whether this was only the best agreement that we could get or whether it was a really satisfactory arrangement. As I said earlier, if we can preserve 95 per cent. of the total inshore fishing of this country and 98 per cent. of the total catch, I think that is a very good agreement. In regard to the public Press, I also observed that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had approached my right honourable friend, but as I was not present at the meeting I cannot, of course, say what transpired.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I know my noble friend is trying to be helpful to the House as a whole, but nevertheless I think he can put himself in order only by putting a question to the Minister.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whether he is aware—
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, I would ask the Minister whether she is aware that I saw the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this morning; that he gave me satisfactory assurances that the breeding grounds and our inshore waters would he completely protected under the arrangements made, and that I then asked 1010 him the specific question I asked the noble Baroness, as to whether in practice Her Majesty's Government consider that the arrangements now negotiated can never be changed without our consent, and she said, "Yes", and he said, "Yes", and that satisfied me?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, in reply to my noble friend, may I say that I hope very much that those assurances have been conveyed to other parts of the House?
§ 3.25 p.m.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, a very important issue has been raised. I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should reply to my question, because he is not a member of Her Majesty's Government. But now we are informed that, in addition to the communiqué yesterday which the noble Baroness repeated this afternoon in your Lordships' House, something has been said privately to a Member of your Lordships' House which apparently was not contained in the Statement made yesterday in another place and repeated this afternoon in your Lordships' House. Surely, we are entitled to know what transpired between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my noble friend Lord Boothby which has not been disclosed to us. Because if it were disclosed to us we might also be converted.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, it has been disclosed.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I am quite certain that nothing could have been added to what has already been said by me to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
§ LORD BOOTHBYHear, hear!
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is hoping that there was some secret pact, but I do not think he can raise that hare.
§ LORD BALERNOMy Lords, may I ask whether this agreement includes a 12-mile limit for a considerable extent of the French coast, and, if so, whether this will not give the French considerable opportunity for the conservation which they so badly need to do; and that 1011 further, when the benefits of this conservation are achieved by the French, they will then wish to continue with the present arrangements?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEYes, my Lords, it does. The 12-mile limit is extended to five Departments of Brittany. I agree with my noble friend that it should ensure that the French are very interested in conservation, and therefore we hope they will be interested in the arrangements after the next decade.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that when I made my first statement she said that three countries had agreed and one had disagreed. At that time agreement had not been reached at all. When the Prime Minister sent his letter he was seeking to get agreement, but no decision was reached. If the noble Baroness is now saying that we have the right of veto this was not referred to yesterday in another place. Indeed, on December 11 the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that any agreement that had a time period written into it, be it five years or ten years, could not be accepted in Britain. Now, apparently, we have a 10-year limit.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, that makes all the difference.
§ LORD HOYNo, my Lords, it does not make any difference to what the noble Lord said, because he said that no matter whether it was five years or ten years, both periods were unacceptable. He is on record as having said that just a few days ago. I am now asking the noble Baroness, as Minister of State, whether this is not in fact going much further than the Statement in the House of Commons yesterday. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in agreement with the noble Baroness it will not be difficult for her to request him to repeat this Statement in another place.
The noble Baroness has said that there can be no change in the unanimity rule, but the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did not take that view. He said that we have not got the right of veto. What the noble Baroness is now saying to the noble Lord is that we retain the right of veto. If that is correct, then obviously 1012 the noble Lord is wrong. The only request I make is this: if in fact we are retaining the right of veto in ten years' time, the least that the Government can do is to arrange for a Statement to that effect to be made in another place, and I would respectfully ask the noble Baroness whether she can arrange for this to be done.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I was present in another place yesterday and I heard all the replies made by my right honourable friend to the questions on his Statement, and while I do not have the complete Hansard in front of me at the moment I can remember clearly that he spoke of the question of unanimity, and that if there is a unanimous decision it means what it says. But it also means that if unanimity cannot be reached, then each country has the right of veto if they have declared a particular question to be of vital national interest.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords. would not the Government agree that the so-called unanimity rule is a convention, nothing more, nothing less, and that in the Treaty of Rome there is provision for qualified majority "voting? Would not the noble Baroness also admit that if, by any chance—I hope myself that if will indeed be possible—we came back in the next few years to acceptance of the majority principle, we should still then be able to block any suggestion as regards fishing, or anything else, if we had only the support of two small countries, namely, Ireland and probably Norway? Even under that system, which in my view we ought to accept, we should be in a position which in practice would be fully safeguarded—even to the extent desired by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Gladwyn, said earlier, that we must not proceed to enter the European Communities by considering that we shall always rely on the veto; we must try to reach agreement and be part of the membership of the Community. The Six members of the existing Community have shown great understanding of the needs of the applicant countries as regards fisheries. So far as voting is concerned, if noble Lords look 1013 at paragraph 70 of the White Paper they will observe that it makes quite clear that in practice
Where a member State's vital interests are at stake it is Community practice to proceed only by unanimity".If, however—to answer the noble Lord's second point—we did in fact have qualifield majority voting, there would have to be 43 votes cast in favour of the decision, and as the United Kingdom would have 10 votes, Denmark and Ireland three each, and Norway, if she becomes a member, three, we should outvote anyone, not taking into account the position of France, who now also has an extension of her rights.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, will the addition of one cruiser be sufficient to protect British fishing interests, and will this protection fall exclusively on British forces, or will the other States of the Common Market agree to collaborate in maintaining that protection?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned that responsibility lies on British forces. At the moment, for England and Wales there are six minesweepers which undertake this duty on behalf of the Navy for the Ministry of Agriculture; in Scotland we have seven fishery protection vessels, and we have another one building at this moment.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, may I turn from the very popular subject of fisheries to the less popular but none the less, to my mind, important question of animal health, which the noble Baroness mentioned, and ask her whether she is aware, in the first place, that the agreement on brucellosis and foot and mouth disease will give great satisfaction to the fanning industry in this country? Is she also aware of the enormous importance, when all the veterinary regulations come to be discussed, of maintaining the position that this country has, because it is an island, particularly with regard to foot and mouth disease?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEYes, my Lords. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Walston, raised this matter because it is a very important part of the Statement. It is for just the reason that we wish to help to 1014 improve the standards throughout the Community that we have maintained the present arrangements, which for ourselves are very strict, for the next five years; then we shall see what veterinary developments come within those five years.
§ LORD LOVATMy Lords, if we may return to fisheries at a more parochial level, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the grave alarm in the Western Isles, which I think have been not too well treated in the terms of limits? They would like to enjoy the 12-mile limit allowed to Orkney and Shetland. We have protected the Inner Minches, but surely it is the Western seaboard of the Long Island, where herring spawn in the shallow water of the Long Island to the Butt of Lewis and down to Barra Head. This is at the mercy of anyone who cares to come in and rake the bottom. It is one of the most important areas of spawning fish and fish nurseries in the Highlands. With unemployment running at 29 per cent., I feel the whole of that area's future is in serious jeopardy. The noble Baroness talked about a fishery cruiser. Having sat in the House for nearly forty years, I know that there has been talk of fishery cruisers since time began, and poaching goes on in the Minch nightly. The position is extremely serious for the island fishermen, who have come into their own since 1964 when the 12-mile limit was introduced.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, as my noble friend rightly says, the way in which the base lines are drawn does include the whole Minches, which are very rich in fishing—much richer than the West coast of the Long Isle. As far as the breeding Grounds are concerned, if it were necessary to extend any limit beyond six miles it would be possible because we still have our national jurisdiction up to twelve miles, provided it is non-discriminatory to any State.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, without wishing to prolong this exchange too far, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify one matter for the benefit of the House, as I think there is some confusion about the question of unanimity? Will she confirm that the unanimity rule, so-called, is in fact only a practice or convention and that it has no basis in law, 1015 and that the only rule governing voting in the Council of Ministers is the rule of qualified majority?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, it is perfectly true that it is a practice, a convention. But, as I said earlier, on major questions the Six Common Market countries as at present constituted have always had to proceed by consent.
§ LORD LOVATMy Lords, would my noble friend answer my question as to when we can hope to see the new fast fishery cruiser?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, the tender has just gone out. In about a year, I hope.
§ LORD CAMOYSMy Lords, I want to support the noble Lord opposite on the question of animal health and ask the noble Baroness whether there is any possibility of preventing pollution of the sea by atomic waste and other horrible things that go into it?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, international discussions are going on about the question of pollution of the high seas.